Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2018-03-05APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Wednesday, March 5, 2018 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend, Paden Prichard, Jeff Shearer, Nick Shur, and Kirk Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Fransted, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. MINUTES No minutes were available for review. FINDINGS None ANNOUNCEMENTS None PUBLIC HEARING Deliberations (continued from February 28, 2018) LU 17-0051-Rivers East II Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. Brent Ahrend recused himself from the hearing and deliberations on this application as he is employed by the applicant’s representative. The rest of the Commissioners made their declarations. None had any stated ex-parte contact, bias, financial, business or personal interests or other conflicts of interest. Mr. Shearer stated that since the original hearing he had made a site visit. The deliberations are on the request for approval of the following: • A Development Review Permit for a 47,290 square-foot commercial building in the Downtown Redevelopment District; • Six Design Variances to the following standards: 1.Approval of a flat roof rather than a gable or hipped roof form in the DRD [LOC 50.05.004.5.c] with an increase in height limitation of 41 feet for flat roofs, to 60 feet [LOC 50.05.004.5.e]; APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 2 of 11 2. Increase in height limit of 45 feet at center of site for the portion of the structure within 120-240 feet of a lot zoned R-6 [LOC 50.04.001.4.c.i]; 3.Reduced amount of storefront glazing on 3rd St. [LOC 50.05.004.6.b.i]; 4.Reduced dimension from ground to bottom of three windows on 3rd St. [LOC 50.05.004.6.b.ii]; 5.Elimination of screening requirement for a portion of a retaining wall over six feet in height at the north end of the parking lot [LOC 50.06.004.2.b.iv]; 6.Reduced dimension of awnings over windows and doors that face a public street [LOC 50.05.004.6.g]; and • Removal of 15 trees to accommodate the project (six on-site and nine street trees). The site is located at 519-543 3rd Street (Tax Lot Reference 21E03DD02300 and 21E03DD02400). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, AICP. Jessica Numanoglu represented staff at the hearing. Mr. Prichard asked Chair Poulson if he wanted to proceed by going through each element of the land use request during the deliberations. Mr. Poulson said he wanted to proceed on the record and public testimony presented during the hearing. Questions of Staff Mr. Poulson asked staff about the alley that intersects with C Avenue. He stated on a site visit he observed grass growing on the alley and that there was a parking space being used on the west side of the alley. Staff replied that there was a condition to remove the parking space, but that it was a space on the east side. If the space is in the right-of-way, staff can manage that. Mr. Poulson said there may be a sight distance issue related to use of that parking space. Mr. Shearer asked if the Fire Department could reach the roof. Ms. Numanoglu referenced Fire Marshal comments as Exhibit F9. She also referenced page 799, Volume II of the record stating that fire access is approved and conditioned to require sprinklers. Mr. Poulson asked the City Engineer if she found an answer to his question about sight distance from the parking space. Ms. Rooney stated she didn’t know if sight distance would be a problem, but was not relevant to this particular land use application. Mr. Shearer referenced page 798, just above “general comments”, a statement regarding impracticality of fire apparatus reaching the upper floors. Ms. Numanoglu proceeded to research through the application document for context to the reference. Mr. Prichard commented on the criteria for the Downtown Redevelopment District in the staff report (starting on page 6 of the Staff Report): •Building siting and massing: most have been met o Complex massing: Moderate pitched roof has not been met, nor have several other elements listed in bullet points in the staff report. •Pedestrian oriented siting: has been met •Roof form: Design variance required •Number of stories: Under d(i), the code criteria for a fourth story are not met because none of the 4 conditions are met. •Building height: At 60-feet, code not met APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 3 of 11 • Flat roof: At over 41 feet, code criteria are not met. Most of the roof is 60 feet. • Starting on page 6 of Staff Report - Character Elements of the Style o Oregon Rustic Style: He finds it hard to consider the building to be this style, though the materials are nice. • On page 8 of Staff Report o Complementary to adjacent buildings: He does not believe the subject building is complementary. It dominates other adjacent buildings. Mr. Poulson stated that there was some effort by the city to define “complementary” style. Mr. Boone cited language in the DRD variance criteria using the term “complementary”, but noted that is not the design criteria for which the applicant has asked for the variance. The DRD standards supersede the general building design standard, which requires buildings to be complementary to nearby buildings of good design. Mr. Prichard continued his comments: • Element b o Storefront appearance is met. o The 80% storefront window design variance is supported o The 12-inches above walkway for windows design variance is supported • Materials o Ground floor masonry is met o Upper story materials met o Roof material is OK, if material will show no patches o Ground floor design (ii): met o Moldings: met o Mechanical equipment met • Outdoor relationships criteria is met • Corner building, (i) complimentary design (not applicable as there are no other buildings at the same intersection to which it would be complimentary). • The building reinforces the building corner: This is met. • View protection (a, b, c) do not apply • Landscaping and site design: All conditions/criteria are met. • Parking requirements: He is not sold on the shared parking requirement and notifications. • Parking lot design and structure requirements are met • Street, alley and sidewalk design criteria are met. • Shared parking, LOC 50.06.002 and 50.05.004.9 — He agrees with staff that it would be hard to limit the floor area used by the events center. Time and occupant limitations are reasonable alternative. Shared parking spaces are about 1000 feet away, too far to be reasonable. There is no shared parking agreement yet. The City becomes the APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 4 of 11 ultimate enforcer. This is not feasible. It is hard to agree that these parking requirements are met. • Site access, circulation, transit, landscaping, fences, lighting, contributions, soils, stormwater, utilities, etc. standards are met. Variances 1. The design criteria are the bedrock of the Downtown Design District. This is a flat site. If the open parking area on the north side were built over, the height criteria could be met. If a second and third floor were built over the surface parking lot, there would be room for the event center on the third floor that would meet the height limit of 41 feet. He stated he had no problem with the flat roof. It would be a huge precedent to grant the variance for 19 feet above the limit for a flat roof. 2. Required distance from a residential building to permit additional height — Measurements are made from the R-6 zone. There is only a small part of the site that permits a 60-foot height. The building is stepped back from B Avenue, and not stepped back from the alley or the north side of the building, and only slightly set back from 3rd Street. The variance is asking too much at this location. Mr. Poulson referenced the flat roof. He stated that this was a unique use (event center) for the City. It is a walkable venue, and has certain attributes, such as the views from the open roof of the event center. These are qualitative things. Mr. Prichard agreed that it was a unique use, but that it was an advantage to a small group at the detrimental expense of the downtown core. Mr. Poulson challenged Mr. Prichard’s reasoning on the value of the use and Mr. Prichard restated his opinion. He reiterated his opposition to the height increase. Parking Discussion Mr. Smith opined that the city needs an event center. He is struggling with the lack of parking for the proposed uses. He opined that the event center would have a higher rate of use than a restaurant, therefore requiring more parking. He said that there are 170 spaces needed, but there are currently only 109 spaces proposed for the site. He said the City will have enforcement responsibility and that businesses or residents will likely be impacted and calling in violations. Sufficient parking is important and this proposal sets a bad precedent. Mr. Poulson stated that a parking agreement for use of the Gramor site would have to be a permanent agreement, and may not be possible to obtain. Mr. Shearer addressed parking for the office and retail, for which there are adequate parking spaces. For the event center use, there will likely be carpooling, so fewer spaces may be needed. On-street parking would be available on weekends and evenings, as would other commercial spaces. He has a concern with the exit out of the alley. Mr. Shearer said he still has a problem with the massing. He agrees that the height exception would be hard to deny other developments in the future. He likes the project, but still has concerns. Mr. Poulson stated that this is a unique project and a community amenity. He is less concerned that another project would come forward seeking the same height exception. If the project is rejected, the project may only be multi-family housing, office and/or retail, without the event center. He dislikes speaking about this qualitatively as the Commission is supposed to go by the rules, but he is considering the uniqueness of the project. Mr. Shur said the building code will regulate the occupancy load of the building. The Fire Department would be the enforcement authority. He stated that the building design does not meet the “Lake Oswego Style”. He doesn’t agree with the variance to lessen the canopy from 6 feet to 3 APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 5 of 11 feet. There is no reason for the variance. It is the goal of the Lake Oswego zoning ordinance to protect pedestrians. He does not like the flat roof as it doesn’t reflect the “Lake Oswego Style”. It would be a major style change for the city. Mr. Poulson opined that you can define the number of event attendees, resulting in some control of the parking needs. There is a parking number reduction because people would go to other parking venues. The neighbors will help with enforcement by reporting violations. Parking can be controlled by booking limitations. Mr. Shearer said that a lunchtime event may result in a lack of spaces. He thinks that evening events would likely have sufficient parking as people come to events with 2 or more per vehicle. Mr. Smith said the onus is going to be put upon neighbors and police to enforce. Mr. Poulson said the struggle is find a way to control the parking. He didn’t agree that a restaurant parking requirement is the proper one to use in this case. Mr. Smith pointed out that the staff report indicates 170 spaces are required. Mr. Shearer opined that he thinks the parking is OK as proposed. He does not believe there is a parking issue during the week. Mr. Poulson said the problem is that the city does not have a quantified code for event center parking. Roof Discussion Mr. Prichard reiterated that he did not have a problem with flat roofs, but does have a problem with the 60-foot height. He gave examples of other buildings in the downtown and their roof heights. He said there is nothing else in downtown with that height, coupled with the massing of the proposed building. He opined that the proposed building height wipes out the human scale intended by the design code requirements. Mr. Poulson stated that the same was said of the Wizer Block and the Lakeview Village Block and that once those were in place, people liked them. Responding to an earlier question by a Commissioner, Ms. Numanoglu noted the August 8, 2017 Fire Marshal memo on page 798 of the record was an old memo based upon an earlier design. The December 14, 2017 Fire Marshal memo on page 799 of the record is the correct memo to reference. Mr. Poulson asked Mr. Boone if it was possible for the applicant to speak to some of the Commission’s questions. Mr. Boone answered that if the Commission is leaning toward denial, the applicant could make a request to come back to the Commission with a revised design. Mr. Prichard moved that the applicant come back with a three-story building design. Seconded by Mr. Shur. Mr. Boone said that the applicant cannot be commanded by a motion to come back with a different design. Motion amended by Mr. Prichard to deny the application. Amendment seconded by Mr. Shur. Discussion: Mr. Boone suggested that the Commission should identify the specific items on which the denial is based so that staff could draft the findings. Mr. Shearer stated that his objection is to the massing. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Prichard stated his denial to the proposal is on Variance 1 and Variance 2, which do not meet the code criteria. He does not object to Variances 3-6. He does not think the building plans meet the Oregon Rustic Style. Mr. Shur objects to Variance 1, 2 and 6. He is fine with parking. Mr. Smith does not believe the parking requirements are met. He agrees that awnings, screening, ground floor glazing criteria are met, but not criteria Variances 1 and 2. Mr. Poulson does not have any objection to any of the variances. Parking requirements are met. Motion: Approved (3:2) to deny the application. Mr. Ahrend returned to his seat at the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 18-0009, a request by the Lake Corporation for approval of a Modification of a Development Review Permit (LU 17-0034) for Major Variances to the Building Orientation standard (LOC 50.06.005.g) for both new buildings. The site is located at 700 McVey Avenue (Tax Map ID 21E10DB00200). Staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Mr. Boone clarified that this is not a modification, but a Development Review Permit for two new buildings with variances to the Building Orientation standard. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process. The Commissioners recited their employment and declarations including no biases, personal, financial or business interests or other conflicts of interest and no ex-parte contact. Mr. Prichard disclosed that he owns property with Lake Oswego access, but does not use it. He has not visited the site. Mr. Poulson did not visit the site, though he drives by it often. Mr. Ahrend drove by the site. He stated that he participated in the first application review for this site. Mr. Shearer did do a site visit. Mr. Smith did do a site visit. He participated in the previous land use application review on this project. There was no objection to the Commissioners hearing this application. Staff Report Leslie Hamilton gave an overview of the applicant’s request, including variances to the Building Orientation standard. The old buildings that were on the site were nonconforming to the building orientation standard and were approved to be remodeled per the previous land use application review. The buildings were subsequently demolished instead of remodeling the existing buildings so the right to maintain the nonconformities to the Building Orientation standard was lost. Since new buildings rather than remodeling of the boat house and marina is proposed the applicant must obtain variances to the Building Orientation standard for the new buildings. The site serves traffic coming from the lake, and not McVey Avenue. Ms. Hamilton reviewed major variance criteria, which includes hardship due to physical circumstances of the property. Most of the site is under water, and the location of the dam and an underground tank prevent the buildings from being able to be located within 30 feet of the street. The site also includes a special setback from McVey Avenue, as well as a 25-foot front setback. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Ms. Hamilton recommended approval of the variances with conditions of approval as outlined in the February 23, 2018 staff report. Questions of Staff Mr. Ahrend asked if the current application superseded the previous land use decision. Ms. Hamilton replied that it does supersede the previous land use application. He stated that he saw that one building was under construction and asked if the Commission decision will immediately impact the construction project. She replied that it would. Applicant Mark Rosenkranz, Water Resource Specialist for the applicant, testified that as deconstruction took place on the original building, they noticed that it was too deteriorated to reconstruct. The building as originally proposed would not meet resiliency codes. He did not realize that a variance was needed before beginning new construction. Jeff Ward, Lake Oswego Corporation, testified that boat traffic is the main use of the site. Boat traffic would have to back from the road if a variance were not granted. He also stated the location of underground storage tanks, gas and other infrastructure limited the project meeting the building orientation standards. Questions of Applicant Mr. Shur asked Mr. Ward how he got a building permit. Mr. Ward stated that once land use approval was granted by the DRC, he then proceeded to obtain a building permit. As construction proceeded, significant dry rot was found, as well as other structural problems. Mr. Rosenkranz said inspections resulted in a stop work order. Public Testimony None Deliberations Mr. Boone asked if the applicant wanted additional time to submit written testimony. The applicant declined additional time. Mr. Shearer moved that the application be approved with conditions in the staff report, seconded by Mr. Prichard. Motion passed (6:0). Findings are to be presented at the next meeting of the DRC on March 19, 2018 at 7:00 pm. LU 17-0071, is a request by FS Unlimited, LLC for approval of a Minor Development application for construction an office/flexible tenant space building and removal of eight trees. The site is located at 5755 Willow Lane (Tax Map ID 21E18BD01200). Staff coordinator is Evan Fransted, Associate Planner. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process. Commissioners recited their declarations. With the exception of Mr. Shearer, who recused himself due to friendship with the applicant, the commissioners declared no ex-parte contact, business, personal or financial conflicts of interest and no bias. Messrs. Prichard, Poulson, Ahrend stated they had visited or driven by the site. There was no opposition expressed to the commissioners hearing the subject application for review. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Staff Report Mr. Fransted gave an overview of the staff report for the development of a proposed flex office space on the 39,000 square-foot site. The existing buildings on site will be demolished. Eight trees are proposed for removal. Tree removal: The most prominent tree on site is a 38-inch maple tree, which will remain. None of the trees proposed for removal are considered significant per the Tree Code and tree removal criteria are met. There is a discrepancy between the arborist’s report and the site plan shown at the public hearing. A maple tree originally identified on the site is actually on the adjacent site to the west. Ten new trees are proposed to be planted. Two additional trees are recommended for mitigation. Condition A (13) contains reference to the correct arborist’s report and the revised tree mitigation requirements. Lighting plan: Criteria are not met. Condition A (4) is proposed to bring the lighting plan into compliance. Staff recommended approval with those above and other conditions such as utilities, traffic and transportation, based on the findings in the staff report. Questions of Staff Mr. Ahrend asked for clarification of the tree survey on the west adjacent site. Mr. Fransted restated the correction on the arborist report. Mr. Ahrend asked if auto repair was a proposed use. Mr. Fransted stated that it was not a proposed use, as it is a flex building, but is allowed in the zoning district. The applicant is proposing office uses. Mr. Ahrend asked about the landscape area on the east side along the parking area, but will ask applicant about this later. Mr. Smith asked about Condition A (8, 9 and 10) and on B (2). Mr. Fransted said Condition B (2) requires a prohibition on tractor-trailers on the site in the future tenant leases, which would require step vans or other small vehicle delivery modes. Mr. Boone explained the need for 7-foot utility easements, which are standard. Excess land in easements on the site are not needed. Mr. Shur asked if the back-up/turnaround area is for fire access, in addition to delivery trucks. Does the site plan meet the Fire Marshal’s requirements? Mr. Fransted pointed out the Fire Marshal’s report in the staff report. Mr. Poulson asked about parking lot lighting and if lighting is not uniform. Mr. Fransted said it was up to the applicant to provide a solution to achieve a uniform pattern of lighting. Mr. Poulson asked where the nearest fire hydrant was located. Applicant responded that it was 50-feet from the site, but is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Ahrend said that Condition A (13) is adequate for mitigation. Applicant Mark Sipiora, Owner/Applicant, FS Unlimited, LLC, and C& C Construction, testified that his business and some construction equipment storage will be located in the proposed building. He APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 9 of 11 stated that the other spaces have not been leased yet. It could have some retail. Stuttgart Auto Repair may take some of the front area for their high-end repair business. Other spaces would be office leases. With regard to the trees, he said they were planted probably in the 1930’s. The cedar tree is located right in the middle of the site, impeding building siting. There is a 24-inch storm line in an easement on the site. They designed the building toward the front of the site to avoid the easement. John Cole, Architect, testified that the building was designed to have offices at the front and flex space at the rear. He worked with staff to identify parking requirements for office uses. Mr. Cole showed a building elevation plan to the Commission with overhead doors, if Stuttgart Auto Repair were to locate in the building. He stated that retail is limited in the current zoning district. The building will be fully sprinklered. He pointed out the building is compatible with other building designs and materials in the area. He said there will be scoring of the concrete on the sidewalks and that additional trees will be provided. Mr. Sipiora stated that restrictions in the leases will limit delivery vehicles to 24-foot vans, such as Fed-Ex, UPS or Amazon delivery vans. Mr. Sipiora stated that the lighting plan is being revised by his design team to meet the code. Mr. Cole pointed out the parking lot has standard 24-foot back-up aisles. Mr. Sipiora stated that the stone façade will have about a 3-inch extension which will provide variation in the texture of the building. Mr. Cole gave an overview of the other code requirements such as trash enclosures and bike parking. Ms. Numanoglu asked the applicant to point out any sectional doors as they were not identified in the application plans. She asked if they would be for vehicle access. Mr. Cole said that they would. Mr. Poulson pointed out that if the auto repair were to locate on the site, there would be loss of parking spaces. Mr. Cole said that if the auto repair business were to locate in the building, there would be excess parking, so loss of a space would not impact required parking spaces. Ms. Numanoglu asked if landscaping would be impacted. Mr. Cole said it would not. Mr. Shur asked about stormwater detention and if it would be adequate. Mr. Chris Deslauriers, Civil Engineer, said infiltration testing showed 2-4-inches per hour infiltration, which is not great. The designed system used both infiltration up to the 10-year storm event and detention and retention. If exceeded, it would then connect to the public storm system. He stated water quality standards will be met. Mr. Poulson said he was frustrated by the drawing that showed the testing borings because the boring report was not included. Mr. Poulson asked about the boring only being done to 8 feet. He opined that boring should be deeper. Mr. Sipiora said drilling was done to 15-20 foot depths and no free draining rock was found without significant silt. Mr. Poulson asked about the existing manhole and its ability to not back up in the large storm event. Mr. Cole said the 24-foot storm drain will handle most of the flow. The invert of the proposed storm system is above the city storm drain. Mr. Poulson asked about the building on the abutting property at the northwest corner, which is on the property line. Mr. Sipiora said it was greenhouse and that it was already gone. They will be building a retaining wall between the applicant’s site and the adjacent property. Mr. Poulson asked about the grading plan, C 2.2, pointing out the steep grade in the parking area. The applicant said they can flatten that out a bit. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Poulson asked if the back wall was going to be visible. Mr. Sipiora said that it would be visible from the dentist’s office adjacent. Mr. Shur asked about the overhead doors. Mr. Cole said each bay would have a roll-up sectional door at 9 feet. There would also be a man-door for each unit. For a drive aisle to the door, if needed, it would necessitate removal of a wheel stop. Only one stop would be lost. Mr. Ahrend pointed out the need for .5 spaces per employee to be retained. Mr. Ahrend asked staff if there is problem with pedestrians walking across the sidewalk along the side façade, which may be a safety issue. Ms. Numanoglu said there is nothing prohibiting the proposed design. Mr. Ahrend asked if it were possible to save the cedar tree (Tree #10). Mr. Cole said no, as the tree would be right in the parking lot. Mr. Prichard asked if the tree shown as the 37-inch maple is the one to be removed. Mr. Cole said yes. Mr. Prichard asked if the Norway maple could be retained as a street tree. Ms. Numanoglu said it was an invasive tree that could be removed with an over the counter permit. Mr. Prichard asked if the overflow would drain to the street. Mr. Cole said “no, that it would flow to the 24-inch diameter city pipe in the easement. Mr. Prichard asked if the space between the potential Stuttgart Auto Repair location and the applicant’s business was leased yet. He asked about other potential leases. Mr. Sipiora said talks with potential lessees are still in process. Mr. Ahrend asked about contractor parking and compact spaces. Mr. Sipiora said that most of his workers are using vans, mostly working at night. Some cargo trailers are used too. He said the workers drive their vans home at night, or they may be pulled into the flex space inside the building. He speculated that most of his employees would park in the back. There are only 7 employees and only 5 of them drive. Mr. Ahrend was concerned about the utilitarian use of the parking spaces. Public Testimony In Support None. In Opposition None. Neither in Support nor Opposition None. Mr. Boone asked if the applicant wished to keep the record open for additional testimony. The applicant did not want to keep the record open. Deliberations Mr. Ahrend said he aired his concerns about the tree retention, operational issues, parking and roll- up doors. Other than that, he likes the project and is leaning toward approving it. Ms. Numanoglu read from page 17 of the staff report stating that per the Capital Improvement Plan, a signal will be installed at the Jean Road/Pilkington intersection in 2020. Mr. Prichard said it would be a nice addition to the industrial zone and would approve it. Mr. Shur said he would support it. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 5, 2018 Page 11 of 11 Mr. Boone asked if the applicant had any concerns related to the revised Condition A (13). They did not. Moved by Mr. Shur to approve the land use application with conditions of approval in the staff report and revised Condition A (13) and seconded by Ahrend. Motion passed (5:0). Findings are to be presented at the March 19, 2018 meeting at 7:00 PM. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Numanoglu said a new DRC commissioner will be appointed by the City Council and an orientation will be scheduled for that person on March 13, 2018. She said current commissioners could attend, if they wished. Mr. Ahrend asked if the appointee was an alternate. Ms. Numanoglu stated “yes”. Mr. Prichard asked about code amendments forthcoming that include sustainability criteria. Ms. Numanoglu said she could provide a copy of the amendments to him. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader /s/ Janice Bader Administrative Support